What has been your scaling experiences? (4)

So it's common knowledge that once you get a campaign profitable it's time to scale as big as possible.

However something that I noticed since just starting to get campaigns profitable is that scaling usually requires some sort of tweaking to the funnel when moving to a different traffic source?

I notice that if I get something going on Traffic Source A, that usually I'll have to tweak something to get it working on Traffic Source B?

This usually comes in the form of some minor change like perhaps using a new lander or different style of banners etc. Of course success is a little easier since I'm not starting from scratch, but I do usually notice that I need to make some sort of change to the original funnel to make it work.

This would seem to make sense as I would expect different traffic sources to have different users, thus perhaps they will respond differently to my creatives.

Has this been your experience too?

Will just touch on the part that applies on just about all traffic types, and let the pros in Adult give you more specific advice..

Once you have a profitable campaign on any traffic source, that is kind of proof that the offers is pretty darn decent, especially if you split tested a few more offers.

When you go to a new traffic source, you then at least have a sure winning offer in the funnel, so only things that can be wrong are the traffic itself or other elements of the funnel. If you are profitable on Traffic Source A, it's possible but highly unlikely that your lander or banners will be a decisive factor in making Traffic Source B profitable. The logic is that you have something very good, albeit not perfect, so the major variable now will be the traffic source. Almost all difference should be made by the traffic, aside from some small details in the funnel like you said, that design doesn't fit as well for example.

For sure, when you test the same set of offers and creatives on multiple traffic sources, you'll sometimes see different winners.

There's no doubt in my mind that the most ACCURATE approach would be to test offers and creatives from scratch on every traffic network - but that would be such an inefficient way of doing things. Unless you're targeting a high-volume geo with a camp that has high profit margins, the extra accuracy will probably not be worth the additional time and test budget required.

So what I would suggest, would be to use one network or even one big premium publisher site to test offers and creatives, and then scale the winning offer+creatives to other placements and networks. Compared to the approach above, this one probably won't allow you to squeeze as much profits from each source, but the cost-savings in time and test budget would be significant.

If you want to take more of a middle-path, then scale your top 2-3 performing offers and landers and banner angles instead of just your best.

And as Manu has pointed out above, customizing the look-and-feel of your landers and banners to the target site can make a major difference as well.




Amy

Originally Posted by jabong82

So it's common knowledge that once you get a campaign profitable it's time to scale as big as possible.

However something that I noticed since just starting to get campaigns profitable is that scaling usually requires some sort of tweaking to the funnel when moving to a different traffic source?

I notice that if I get something going on Traffic Source A, that usually I'll have to tweak something to get it working on Traffic Source B?

This usually comes in the form of some minor change like perhaps using a new lander or different style of banners etc. Of course success is a little easier since I'm not starting from scratch, but I do usually notice that I need to make some sort of change to the original funnel to make it work.

This would seem to make sense as I would expect different traffic sources to have different users, thus perhaps they will respond differently to my creatives.

Has this been your experience too?